If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

re: Is this right?

Originally Posted by 2006

I think that promoting bad English and trying to justify it by saying it adds emphasis is very questionable.

Not questionable at all, 2006. I see and hear it done all the time.

But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. ... using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.

Grammar Puss - Steven Pinker

The aspects of some prescriptivist works ... illustrate ways in which those works let their users down. Where being ungrammatical is confused with merely being informal, there is a danger that the student of English will not be taught how to speak in a normal informal way, but will sound stilted and unnatural, like an inexpert reader reading something out of a book.

re: Is this right?

Originally Posted by riverkid

Not questionable at all, 2006. I see and hear it done all the time.

But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. ... using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.

Grammar Puss - Steven Pinker[/quote[

But the question is, how many dialects are you going to teach to ESL students at one time? It seems much more sensible and realistic to teach standard English and allow students to pick up other dialects if and when they are exposed to them. Many ESL students will never be exposed to "rural and Black dialects".

re: Is this right?

Originally Posted by 2006

Originally Posted by riverkid

Not questionable at all, 2006. I see and hear it done all the time.

But the question is, how many dialects are you going to teach to ESL students at one time? It seems much more sensible and realistic to teach standard English and allow students to pick up other dialects if and when they are exposed to them. Many ESL students will never be exposed to "rural and Black dialects".

Indeed it does seem an eminently sensible thing to stick to standard English, 2006. But when ESLs do ask there is no reason to mislead them. Double negatives are not simply found in rural and Black dialects. They are common in the speech of speakers of standard English too.

Quite obviously, from the questions we get here all the time, ESLs are being exposed to a lot of different dialects of English.

re: Is this right?

Originally Posted by 2006

But the question is, how many dialects are you going to teach to ESL students at one time? It seems much more sensible and realistic to teach standard English and allow students to pick up other dialects if and when they are exposed to them. Many ESL students will never be exposed to "rural and Black dialects".

Knowledge, however, is power. In teaching a word or phrase, providing its variants then and there empowers learners. (Just ask them.) Students of English will and do come across variants all the time, thanks to American movies, TV, and, of course, the Internet, especially online chat. That don't sign nothing is correct (or not) is a completely different topic, given that "correct" is a subjective term, not to mention has its history in prescriptivism, and as teachers we should be aware of that from the get-go.

Standard English Standard English is the language we use for public discourse. It is the working language of our social institutions. The news media, the government, the legal profession, and the teachers in our schools and universities all aim at Standard English as a norm of communication, primarily in expository and argumentative writing, but also in public speaking. Standard English is thus different from what we normally think of as speech in that Standard English must be taught, whereas children learn to speak naturally without being taught. Of course, Standard English shares with spoken English certain features common to all forms of language. It has rules for making grammatical sentences, and it changes over time. The issues of pronunciation discussed in this book mainly involve how to pronounce specific written words or written letters, such as ch or g, in different words. The guidance to pronunciation is not meant to standardize or correct anyoneís naturally acquired form of spoken English.

The name Standard English is perhaps not the best, since it implies a standard against which various kinds of spoken English are to be measured, and this is hardly a fair comparison. A better name might be Institutional English, Conventional English, Commercial English, or Standardized English for Writing and Public Speaking, but these names all have their own negative connotations and shortcomings. So, since Standard is what this brand of English has been called for generations, we use the name here.

Nonstandard English There are many expressions and grammatical constructions that are not normally used in Standard English. These include regional expressions, such as might could, and other usages, such as ainít and it donít, that are typically associated with dialects used by people belonging to less prestigious social groups. These nonstandard varieties of English are no less logical or systematic than Standard English. In this book an expression labeled nonstandard is not wrong; it is merely inappropriate for ordinary usage in Standard English.

Formal English On some occasions it is important to adhere to the conventions that characterize serious public discourse and to avoid expressions that we might use in more casual situations. Formal writing and speaking are characterized by the tendency to give full treatment to all the elements that are required for grammatical sentences. Thus in formal English you might hear May I suggest that we reexamine the problem? where both clauses have a subject and verb and the subordinate clause is introduced by the conjunction that. Of course, formal English has many other features. Among these are the careful explanation of background information, complexity in sentence structure, explicit transitions between thoughts, and the use of certain words such as may that are reserved chiefly for creating a formal tone. Situations that normally require formal usage would include an article discussing a serious matter submitted to a respected journal, an official report by a group of researchers to a government body, a talk presented to a professional organization, and a letter of job application.

Informal English This is a broad category applied to situations in which it is not necessary, and in many cases not even desirable, to use the conventions of formal discourse. Informal language incorporates many of the familiar features of spoken English, especially the tendency to use contractions and to abbreviate sentences by omitting certain elements.

Where formal English has May I suggest that we reexamine the manuscript? in informal English you might get Want to look this over again? Informal English tends to assume that the audience shares basic assumptions and background knowledge with the writer or speaker, who therefore alludes to or even omits reference to this information, rather than carefully explaining it as formal discourse requires. Typical informal situations would include a casual conversation with classmates, a letter to a close friend, or an article on a light topic written for a newspaper or magazine whose readership shares certain interests of the writer.

re: Is this right?

It is very right and proper to indicate to a learner that there is a correct and an incorrect form. Whether the incorrect form is also a colloquially used one may be interesting, but does not help the learner who is trying to pass a test or complete an assignment.

More advanced learners may well find suitable opportunities to use colloquial forms in acceptable ways.